53 thoughts on “Revision of FCC Media Ownership Rules”

1. In the online lecture Professor Hoffman makes the point that corporations which own shows and networks are not promoting a systematic ideology or have little incentive to do so. Rather corporations would benefit by producing as much divers programing as possible in order to reach many audiences.

   I would not be opposed to relaxing the cross ownership law if mergers were evaluated as fiscally necessary and ensured a merger would not significantly limit diverse ownership in a market.

   One might argue, if the internet is leading to economic hardships on print media we should not interfere with the market and let the cards fall as they may. However if the newspaper which is failing provides underrepresented coverage to specific populations a merger from a broadcast corporation could ensure underrepresented coverage continues.

   The fear of corporations merging as a means of slanting opinions would not hold true according to Gentzkow and Sapiro’s research. Diverse ownership should continue since media does essentially set agendas through the topics they choose to cover. No laws prohibit selective reporting, therefore it is important if we relax cross mergers regulations remain evaluating and approving each merge.

   1. The fiscal aspect is where debate really lies. In a perfect world newspapers and TV news would be thriving and regulation wouldn’t be an issue. Unfortunately, especially on the local level, they are not, but that is especially where regulation is most necessary. That is leading for calls for deregulation, as a means of survival in many cases. I think you are right Freddy that we need to come up with some sort of evaluation to determine whether or not a merger is fiscally necessary. Rather than having the rules being so cut and dry, perhaps a case-by-case approach would be best.

2. I believe the FCC should revise and relax their media ownership rules. However, I do not believe all regulation should be abandoned. Media outlets have expanded to include cable stations and the Internet since the initial ruling was made. I think the rulings should be revised for consistency to include cable companies and Internet outlets to even the playing field. In terms of relaxing the rules, my concern is again with leveling the playing field. Small radio stations and newspapers need to survive to provide alternative voices. If consolidation is the way for their financial survival then they should be allowed to do it.

   1. One might argue though that if small radio stations or newspapers can’t survive on their own, then clearly there isn’t a market for the brand of news and they should shut down. A merger works if it allows them to continue their reporting style uninhibited, otherwise its just a smaller outlet reporting at the will of a corporate parent, which seems like a waste.

      1. That is a very econ-centric view. And as far as the economics of it are concerned I agree with you. There are some forms of media that will be on the way out just because of how we now consume media and they likely should be left to die as to keep them would ultimately be inefficient. However, mergers that allow the concentration of polar messaging is only going to make the political polarization we have worse. I am not sure what the answer is here and how best to deal with it. Perhaps taking the “Chinese Wall” idea that was used in Finance with respects to news divisions.

   2. Maureen, I like your point that the rules need to be revised more for the current era of media that we are living in. Yes, some of the regulations are outdated and do not apply in the same sense that they did historically and they should be revisited. I agree with you concern about small radio stations and newspapers needing the ability to provide alternative voices – and with a mass consolidation, this may not be possible.

   3. Hello Maureen,

      You mentioned that small radio stations and newspapers will survive if the rules of media ownership are deregulated. Although deregulation will keep these small media outlets alive, it may not provide alternative voices. As Doug mentioned, mergers between smaller and larger outlets can narrow differences in viewpoints which may exist in the area. If smaller outlets are merging with larger outlets, there should be regulations that protect the differences in views that may exist between the two outlets.

      1. Hmm, right. There is a difference between a hostile take-over merger to silence a voice and a mutually beneficial merger that supports a world of many voices.

   4. I really like your argument about why FCC should revise their rules. FCC are still following outdated rules from 1970. Therefore, radio and television stations facing competition from other digital media. I also think they should deregulate some rules to help to maintain diversity and FCC should filter those information from these stations.

   5. With relaxing media ownership rules is a slippery slope in losing its tight reins it has on media companies now. I do agree the FCC should include cable companies as more and more shows switch to cable and it is just as readily available to watch as prime TV. Small radios and TV companies will not survive deregulation because larger companies will engulf mom and pop stations. These small family owned stations will have no advantage any more by evening the playing field they will have to compete with larger companies in turn leading to their extinction.

3. I don’t think the FCC should regulate media ownership because I think it might create monopoly. Can you imagine if one could only watch Fox news or NBC? From a consumer perspective, I believe I have more choice, if they don’t regulate. More so, If I feel that an information coming from a media outlet is not accurate or informative, I can compare or lean toward another media outlet. When there is no regulation, it forces company to come up with the best credible news. It creates a more competitive information platform. Therefore, I think more valuable information would be made available to the public.

   Nonetheless, I understand that if the FCC does not regulate, media outlets can focus on topics that interests them. For instance, with the situation going in the world with ISIS, different media outlets focused on Paris rather than Kenya ( for example) . However, the information for Kenya was still there. I firmly believe that no regulation creates diversity. More so, if there is a particular topic that is of interest to you, you are able to look it up to the internet. I believe with less regulation consumers have more control over information in the sense that they can choose what to hear/ search for or read about.

   1. Jennifer, I agree with you, regulations typically do not create diversity. Diversity is something that is created organically, but the inequality that exists makes us believe that regulations must exist if we want diversity to exist. Take for example ivy league college, colleges should reflect the demographic composition of the population as a whole, yet they don’t. We are let to believe that programs (regulation) like Affirmative Actions must exist in order to have more diverse campuses. In reality, the fact is that our minority students aren’t admitted to these colleges because of unequal and unjust policies throughout society that perpetuate the need of programs (regulations) to ensure the diversity that they take away. The same is happening with the communications regulation. Certain policies stripped it from its diversity and now we depend on regulations to ensure that we are exposed to more than one “truth”.

4. On a broad level, deregulation advocates have a strong argument. With so many online news outlets for consumers to access, including the online companions to most newspapers and TV stations, as well as online-only sites like the Huffington Post, consumers now have access to a whole array of news options. In turn, local outlets shouldn’t be so restricted.

   However, the key word there is ‘local’. Keeping that in mind, I agree that regulation of the industry remains necessary. While in New York we still have access to a variety of newspapers, including two national newspapers that cover the city locally, as well as multiple broadcast news outlets like NY1, most cities aren’t so lucky. Many are down to one daily newspaper. While people can access national and international news online, we need regulation to ensure local news isn’t dominated by a sole corporate interest. In small cities with just a single newspaper and a small number of TV and radio news outlets, we need regulation to ensure there is a variety of coverage on topics like local elections, local business and other key issues which the Huffington Post won’t cover. There might be local online news outlets as well, but certainly not on the level that makes local regulation moot.

   Therefore, while on the national scale it makes some sense to argue for deregulation, when thinking about local media markets across the country, in smaller cities that have just a few sources for news, regulation still seems necessary.

   1. Doug, you make a great point about viewing this issue from a regional/local perspective. We do forget that the options here in the NYC metro area are rare compared to the rest of the country. In the smaller towns, they need the option to consume different points of view from a variety of sources – not one source that has a variety of outlets.

   2. Hello Doug,

      You make a great point by comparing the issue on a national versus local level. As New Yorkers, we take for granted the wide selections of newspapers that are available on a daily basis. The comparison between smaller and larger cities shows there is a disparity between exposure to different news outlets. That said, deregulation of media ownership rules will probably narrow the selections further in smaller cities compared to their larger counterparts.

   3. Doug you really make a great point. We need more diversity in the local level. In the national level, there are several sources which plays the monopoly now-a-days. However, more sources in the local level will help to inform the public more about what is happening on their surroundings. As we live in the New York City, we have access to many local newspaper, many other cities do not usually have these local news. They highly depend on national newspaper. There they get less informed about what is happening on their surroundings. This situation might affect on how they vote on the election.

5. I think that the FCC should relax media ownership rules. Some may fear that if today’s media was consolidated there would be a lack of diversity. However, as new media outlets have arrived (the internet), citizens now have a way to check whether the information that is given to them is accurate or not. Idealistically, the consolidation of media ownership may allow for more agendas to be available to the public. As the video lecture stated, the media sets the agenda. Therefore, with consolidation we may see a scenario where the media seeks to broadcast a variety of agendas to increase diversity and attract different populations of the public.
   Relaxing media ownership rules does not mean that all rules will be abandoned, it is just a way of loosening the reigns so that traditional media sources can compete with a variety of new media outlets. However, it is possible that the situation may not be ideal and the media outlets will essentially become a consortium. In this case media outlets would cover whichever agendas they wish to cover and disregard the matter of public opinion. However, in such a case we have tools that were previously not available in the past. We have the internet. It presents us with the opportunity to cross check our information and to seek other agendas as well.

   1. Anuradha I agree with you, relaxing the rules does not mean loosing control. The rules should be relaxed when it comes to the creation and entry of new small media groups into the industry. This I believe will enhance variety and encourage local content. At the same time I support strict regulation when it comes to consolidation in other to prevent the creation monopolies.

      1. First relaxing the rules with the creation and new entry of small media groups then its relaxing the rules all around. Big companies already established will want the same perks and laid back regulation being applied to there organizations. How can we prevent this? Now everyone is on a somewhat equal playing field. In order to keep this we must agree to update the current laws as they are out dated and should reflect the current times we live in but we must also make them equal across the board. Giving special treatment to new entry groups is just the beginning of the end of the FCC strict rule.

6. The Federal Communications Commission needs to relax media ownership rules. This I believe will promote diversity and will lead to the creation of a diverse information and entertainment industry that will cater for all groups. Relax media ownership rules will allow the various corporations owning the stations to produce content catering to a diverse viewership. This will produce a better rounded perspective which is vital to the education of citizens.
   Even though in general less government regulation leads to greater variability it is not always so when it comes to media. Limited regulations in this case will lead to more consolidation which in turn leads to limited options. Regulations are needed in this industry to prevent a skewed market. The FCC has been more worried about the preventing a monopoly rather than the diversity of opinions when it comes to the regulation of the media. This is evident in their blockage of the Comcast- Time Warner cable merger. They believed the resulting company will be too larger, will control the majority of the market and not serve the interest of the people.
   So yes I believe the FCC should relax media ownership rules but I also believe limits should be set as to the extent to which media organisations can expand and consolidate to prevent a media monopoly and promote diversity.

7. I think that the media market needs to stay regulated in regards to dual ownership regarding TV networks. With the fall of print newspapers and the rise of digital streaming services, the industry is in the midst of a massive shift in the way consumers receive content. We need to continue to prevent a massive merger of the largest stations in order to prevent a monopoly.

   I agree that if TV corporations get too large, they will have the ability to push their agenda to the public and extinguish smaller, independent outlets. We need these small players to provide fresh ideas and a new voice that is not backed by a billion dollar company. Most big players in the space are either leaning left or leaning right – and this is proven by the content they produce.

   Corporations continuing to acquire and grow may also have a negative impact on diversity. As Jessica Gonzalez states, listeners of Clear Channel stations are “fed a steady diet of racism and stereotyping.”

   Online publications, podcasts, blogs allow for original content to be consumed by the public. With the rise in streaming services, no longer do we need CBS, ABC or Fox to decide what we watch and when we watch it. Now, with Netflix and Amazon, talented original people are getting the opportunity to shine and the consumers decide when they watch and how often they watch. Major networks have not yet been able to figure out this market and if we allow for deregulation, it could prompt them to merge to capture market share.

   1. Hanna, the major networks are now actively growing their online presence. They are moving into areas that was originally consider to be the domain of small online streaming services like Hulu and Netflix. They all have on demand options for their programmes and are expanding to non traditional media devices like game consoles and Smart TVs. This is why I believe the rules should be strict to prevent these big media houses from buying out small setups. We need more options and variety not further consolidations

   2. Anna I completely see your point and I cannot imagine if I have to watch – or if I am forced to get my news from once TV corporation. Also I do love the point you made about having ability to watch shows, movies and documentaries from other entities such as Netflix and Hulu and such. If there were no regulations it could very well urge major networks to take over small entities who are on their able to captivate/generate a great amount of audience. Also, as you mentioned due to blogs and stuff I no longer have to watch CNN or Fox or anything Television network to be aware of what’s going on in the world.

   3. Anna, I completely agree with you in this case. If there is deregulation of media then corporations may begin to control the new age of media which now gives us the freedom to choose what we view and what agendas we find important. A consolidation of corporations and online media outlets can be detrimental because the we will lose the one source we had in which the people are able to determine what the agenda is.

8. The Federal Communications Commission needs to relax media ownership rules. This I believe will promote diversity and lead to the creation of a diverse information and entertainment industry that will cater for all groups. Relaxed media ownership rules will allow a diverse pool of applicants to enter the industry and produce content catering to a diverse viewership. This will produce a better rounded perspective which is vital to the education of citizens.
   Even though in general less government regulation leads to greater variability it is not always so when it comes to media. Big media corporations own cable networks, news stations, newspapers and are also internet service providers. This gives then great control when it comes to access to information .Limited regulations in this case will lead to more consolidation which will in turn lead to limited options. Regulations are needed in this industry to prevent a skewed market. The FCC has been more worried about the prevention of a monopoly rather than the diversity of opinions when it comes to the regulation of the media. This is evident in their recent blockage of the Comcast- Time Warner cable merger. They believed the resulting company will be too large, will control the majority of the market and not serve the interest of the people.
   So yes I believe the FCC should relax media ownership rules in order to enable smaller providers to enter the industry but I also believe limits should be set as to the extent to which media organisations can expand and consolidate to prevent a media monopoly and promote diversity.

   1. Chris, I completely agree with you. I think there is more than the FCC can and should do to enable smaller providers to enter the industry. It could even create an initiative for small providers to enter, maybe through reducing creation or early costs or providing subsidies to help them fund their initiation. I believe that the more diversity of opinions that are out there, the better. In order to have an educated society, we must have access to various opinions from which to formulate an educated opinion/stand from.

9. The FCC should not deregulate media ownership rules. Although deregulations advocates argue that the Internet serves as a media outlet with diverse points of view, it does not trump traditional media sources. Information that are broadcasted through the radio, newspaper and on television must be diverse for public consumers. If the FCC deregulate the media ownership rules, there may be major consequences. For example, it may create a monopoly. If an owner controls two major companies (e.g. FOX and NBC news), the information presented to the public may be limited and narrow to that the owners’ interpretation of the“truth.” Although this is common, for the media to present information that reflect the beliefs and attitudes of a targeted audience, deregulation of media ownership rules will affect consumers’ access to different viewpoints that are presented to the public.

   1. Nickiesha-I completely agree. I think that if we are to want a truly democratic society then the people have a right to have access to all viewpoints and information on a topic. Whether they chose to listen to those viewpoints and sources of information is up to them, but they have the right to have different bias and opinions available to them to form opinions.

10. I was not aware that the FCC held strict rules on the media ownership. The deregulation of the media ownership is not a good idea because if one or two companies end up owning all the media outlets, it would cause a monopoly which causes harm in a democratic society. It is vital that the public has a diversity set of news sources to choose from because having one major source for news can cause bias and important details can be missing. The eye and perception of the reporter and camera documentation can be bias. However, it is also hazardous for one major corporation to be in charge of the media outlets because it can be corrupted. It is important that the voices of the minority population must be heard and brought to the public’s attention. In order to get the most accurate and raw material of news, it is important that the general public has a variety of news sources with a wide population.

11. I agree with the FCC media ownership regulations as it stands. I believe that it should be regulated to prevent the monopolization of communications. According to both, the chapter reading and the lecture, the public is heavily influenced by what the media portrays. If no regulation exist and communications are monopolized, only the views of a company giant will be broadcast. This could have devastating effects on society since it would create single minded people and possible violence or repression of those courageous enough to oppose popular opinion. I believe that this regulation, although it doesn’t “encourage minority ownership in the media”, as the LA Times article states, it does however, protect minority owned media outlets and it prevents the creation of a single minded society.
    This regulation, I see as specially important in relation to politics. Using Donald Trump as an example, imagine what his presidency campaign would be like if not regulation of ownership existed and he owned the majority of the communications. If people are heavily influence by the media, it would almost be a guarantee that we would have the Donald in the White House as our next president. With someone as inept as him in the White House, it is scary to even imagine what he would drive the country into as commander in chief, particularly with the events the U.S. allies are currently experiencing. Thankfully, the regulations allow for other presidential candidates to express their agenda, even those without big corporate support like is the case with Bernie Sanders. By allowing the different agendas to be broadcast, the public can then decide who appeals to his/her needs and deserves his/her vote come election day.

    1. I agree with you Shareny, it will be scary if only one type of information is being fed to a public who largely relies on the media for their news. Not only will Donald Trump be elected into the White House, people will not be well informed about the things going on around the world. A lot of things that happens outside of the U.S. is received by the people through media outlets and people won’t be able to be well informed. For example when the Isis incident in Paris occurred a lot of major news channels mostly spoke about the Paris incident and a lot of other events as such did happen in other countries like Beirut and such and if it wasn’t for my access to multiple news channels I wouldn’t have known

12. I have mixed feelings about FCC regulation policies. I think FCC should update its rules and regulation based on current needs of the society. They are still following the rules from the 1970 although we in the twenty-first century. With the outdated rules and regulations, FCC ‘s main operator radio and television stations are facing heavy competitions with updated digital medias from Internet. I think FCC should loosen some of its regulation in their laws. With fewer regulations, there will be more diversity in radios and television stations. Fewer companies will not able to create monopoly in the system. There will be more sources available to public, which is a necessary tool for deliberation. Currently, only 3% companies of radio and television stations are from the minority groups. If FCC losses its regulations, then more minority companies will able to spread their news to public rather than depending on fewer companies now-a-days.

    On the other hand, I think there still some strict regulations for radio and television stations. Before processing information from these media, FCC should filter their information about what they are spreading to the public. If there is no regulation at all, then it might create chaos and spread biases in the society. Radio and television stations can send false information to the public. Therefore, some regulations will able to help spread the accurate message to the public.

    Lastly, FCC chairman needs to come with updates rules and regulations to cope with other digital medias,

    1. Nabila-I agree with you about the FCC needing to think about other digital medias and incorporate them into FCC regulations. Are you thinking about digital media like twitter and facebook? Or what were you thinking?

       It is my understanding that people have a right to post (within reason) what they want on these media outlets and they post them from various sites that they find including opinions they are for or against to incite debate or deliberation among their followers. This is a new way that the FCC has not looked at on how news and opinions are spread. However, I am not sure that they can regulate it because it is what people post on their certain accounts influenced by media that they read on FCC regulated sites and media.

13. I think that the FCC should continue regulation of media ownership only because it will prevent monopoly in the media market. It would be very limiting to have one corporation own all major TV outlets – this will cause the public to only be able to receive news through one perspective.

    The regulations also allows for different networks to project news through different opinions and ideas. The shows, news and informations the public receives from Fox is completely different than that of CNN. Also with the internet being a source where the public also gets a lot of major information, it is important that the regulations apply. Also, in the Media Ownership article they stated that regulations does limit the diversity of media ownerships, it stated that “Only 3% of TV stations are owned by Black people.” This to me has to change, and maybe it will require some deregulations on the part of the FCC. However, I do think that some form of regulation is still necessary to avoid the takeover of news by one specific media outlet.

    1. I agree Kristia. The free market media can destroy a minority voice outlet. Regulation needs to intervene to protect those voices.

14. Hi Nabila, I agree with you. I think you make a good point by mentioning the lack of diversity , you said” only 3% companies of radio and television stations are from the minority groups.” I do think like you that if The FCC looses its regulations , it might help the minorities. However, I do like that you’ve recognized that some regulations is also needed to avoid monopoly.

15. A valid point that was listed in the prompt is that the internet complicates this already tricky situation of media ownership rights. While I do agree that it is difficult for news and media outlets to profit in a time where we have access to our phones, computers, i Pads, tablets, etc., I think that most of these outlets have done a good job adapting to the new technology. For example, CNN has a website and an app that is visited frequently. In fact, almost all of the large news outlets and newspaper outlets have an app and website.

    I am not 100% clear on how this may effect local radio stations or smaller newspapers who do not have access to the funds and resources the larger ones do. I think that if the larger ones could have ownership over some of them it may help.

    That being said, I think it is very important for different voices and opinions to be heard throughout all media outlets. These outlets already market towards their target audience, and that would and should continue. This allows for the public to have access (not that they all take advantage of it) to a variety of different opinions on a specific topic. For example, if someone is particularly liberal and they want to stand against de-funding planned parenthood, there are various media and news outlets that will have articles and information supporting this. But if they happen to be more conservative, they also have available to them opinions for de-funding. No matter which side of the issue I am on, I can have access to information about all arguments should I wish to see them.

    Now, there are so many other layers to how people receive and interpret information that the FCC is just a small portion of it. Such as, social media inclusion, “opinion leaders,” education of the public, age, race, gender identity, and the list goes on. So many different things influence their opinions, what they watch, and how they interpret it.

    But, to answer the question in the prompt, I believe that laws should be kept to limit ownership of multiple media platforms.

    1. Keri, I like that you mentioned most media outlets have adapted to new technology. Traditional media outlets are no longer traditional, they are adapting to the digital ways , where many news stations now have social media pages. I think the fact that these media outlets are becoming more digital helps to regulate the idea of consolidation because people from all over are able to respond to the posts made by these media outlets, thus, the opinions are not all coming form one source.

16. It is very interesting to note that research finds that homogeneity in media would not benefit corporations. The argument that smaller media outlets, and the advent of the internet, might benefit from deregulation in order to level the field has merit. The FCC is charged with checking the communications industry and its regulations come up to best serve people and industry at that time. It would seem that revisiting the rules on the books might be beneficial to more disenfranchised corners of the industry. If it turns out that Big Comm. can operate without squelching smaller voices, then allowing freer commerce might be what is best for the industry, without adversely affecting the public.

    Media is a very unique business as it has the ability to feed information to the public. It remains that while ownership regulation might need to be revisited, that the job of the FCC is as relevant as ever. New forms of communications pop up more frequently than ever before, and the commission needs to better understand what best protects the people and commerce.

17. Shareny, your point on media’s affect on the public is hugely important. This is a scary issue, as opinions are subjective, and it would be difficult to charge the government with deciding which organizations’ messages are allowed to be broadcast. The line between government-regulated media and a more organic onset of (hopefully) diverse options is very fine. I would like to think that even in a homogenous market that people of their own minds would seek out media that caters to them, or at the least, diverges from the popular outlets. Unfortunately, as you said, the public is extremely susceptible to popular media, and it is still necessary to ensure that monopolies don’t have the only say in what information the public receives. It is scary to think, though, that the government might be the entity that decides the information that is publicized, and I think that is where a problem arises. The government might be able to regulate some commerce, but information scares people. Ensuring diversity by restriction seems counterintuitive.

    Regardless, popular Trump-controlled media should incentivize government and individuals to ensure that such a thing does not happen.

18. I agree with Nickiesha. There needs to be a common ground between the political right and the corporate media. People should have a right to have access to all the information about a topic. If the news media are biased, then we would hear what we want to hear and not the truth. Everyone has a right to know the truth about what is going on. Technologies have made the media so diverse and competitive that restrictions on ownership are no longer required to make possible a diverse marketplace of ideas.

19. I agree with Maureen and Doug. Newspapers and radios are needed. We need to keep things local, because these are helping citizens being informed about their local area. They provide us information of the areas around us; things we do not notice, but are important to our daily life. Local reporters are able to pick up on local issues and read into situations in a way that national correspondents cannot match. National correspondents provide us a few minutes of the story, whereas local reporters can revist a story numerous times to make sure the listeners fully understand and how it impacts one another.

20. The FCC should relax some media ownership rules for newspaper and broadcast station cross-ownership and local radio ownership. Though the courts have ruled against the modification to the former rule, the medium by which the public receives information has evolved over the years. Berman and Murphy note that during the Revolutionary Period the newspaper was primarily used for educating the public about the new political system and mobilizing public opinion. The newspaper was then replaced by radio which suffered the same consequence with the advent of television which was later replaced by the internet, cable television, etc. These types of ownership provide diversity and would not be harmful, since the market share has decreased and it reaches a specific segment of the population who may still want to receive their information via these formats. Notably, according to the LA Times article, the FCC has not made changes to radio ownership since 1996 even though there have been changes in the market.

    1. I agree with the deregulation of newspaper to a point. It would be interesting to find out what is a newspaper for the FCC, how do they define them?
       Is a newspaper a just a print medium or it includes websites?
       Because I don’t want to be a citizen in which four companies owned the major sources of news. We have advanced enough to define a newspaper in a different way that an online news provider, right?

       If one company want to own most of the print papers in a state, it would not be aproblem, but if the company is allowed to buy major internet information producers, it would be. The key is to prevent the formation of monopolies accross the board.

21. Regulating policies every 4 years is good effort to keep relevant and up to date with the times however the policy of relaxing its media rules and allowing cross ownership will create monopolies and the acquisition of small companies by large conglomerates. Including the internet and cable stations is the way to make the FCC media control relevant. As seen in government time and time again pressure and money with get policies passed so although I am not in favor of the FCC allowing new changes to its rules that could harm small companies I am sure it will be passed soon enough. According to the article the FCC voted in 2007 to relax its laws, making laws relevant to the time will always be valued but relaxing them for what purpose.

22. I am skeptical of any arguments in favor of eliminating the no newspaper and television station ownership in a single market rule based on the premise that traditional media sources need to be able to compete with online entities. This sounds like a reasonable position but there is no evidence to suggest that by allowing owners to consolidate these types of media assets, they will suddenly be able to compete with internet news sites. It will certainly boost their profits by allowing owners to cut down on content production costs but as newspapers and television stations are a media category of their own, distinct from web-generated content, they would still be unable to compete in the internet’s news market. As transformative as the internet has been in changing the way people find and consume media, many Americans still receive their news the old-fashioned way (http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/how-americans-get-news/). Furthermore, much of the news content found on the internet is generated by reporting from traditional news media sources. This suggests that the laws that went on the books 40 years ago to prevent single-owner dominance of news still have relevancy today and should be preserved.

    This said, it’s unclear to me what the legal basis for the FCC’s 70’s-era ruling is. Traditional media, unlike most products, is “consumed” on a strictly voluntary basis by the viewer/listener. Individuals do not need to watch television the way they need to eat food so why should the government be actively intervening to ensure that the content is produced by multiple owners? If there is a concern that consolidated media ownership can lead to problems, how do we know that the already merged markets haven’t already been compromised by corporate interests? Questions like these, in addition to the first amendment’s protection of speech, lead me to be to be a bit wary of any of the government’s attempts to regulate this market. On the other hand; however, laws like these may be the only thing standing between me and a non-stop barrage of messaging from Rupert Murdoch owned news entities every second of every day.

23. Chris! you do make a valid argument in your post. What evidence will one have that by allowing owners to consolidate media assets that they will be able to compete with internet news sites? No evidence, whatsoever. Maybe like a lot of my classmates have pleased the FCC should revise its media ownership rules. But on the other hand, as you mentioned, what we, the public consume , either as a reader, listener or viewer is purely voluntary? How will that impact much of our choices?

24. I am going to take my comment here and go one step further. With respects to mergers, they are a function of the Supercaptialism we have in America now (to steel Robert Reich’s concept from his book of the same name). I personally get that the mergers increase efficiency, reduce redundancy, et cetera, thereby making it cheeper to provide the service. But with something as important as the news, that ensures that there are diverse opinions in the public sphere, I just can not get on board with that level of consolidation. I do like the idea of news divisions having Chinese Walls. You can have some efficiencies like corporate providing AP or Blumberg Terminals but when it comes to the editorial and reporting independence I think the Chinese Wall concept from wall street makes a lot of sense. Have each newsroom be independent, but allow for providing resources at the corporate level.

25. The consolidation of media is a grave concern to the general public because large news outlets are our most effective and trusted form of information. Without an un-bias media competing to educate the American people on the issues of the day, the citizenry can not form the opinions that guide our government. The opinions of the American electorate sway the actions of legislatures and executives across this country, and the formulation of those opinions must be built on valid information for the wellbeing of everyone.

    With the consolidation of media, we loss the competitiveness of our most resourceful news media. Without fear of being “scooped” by an equally resourceful competitor, why would a news outlet invest money and talent into the long in depth journalism that resulted in some of the greatest stories of the modern age: the verification of Wikileaks, the Pentagon Papers, the Watergate Scandal… all came from large investments by major news outlets. Without competition we will see reduced investment in investigative journalist and more “economically” journalism on human interest stories and gossip.

    We must also be concerned about the increased influence their consolidated parent companies would have over this important educational resource. News outlets would find themselves compromised by their fiduciary responsibility to their parent company and the often detrimental stories the news reveals. As the parent companies grow, so will the chances of these conflicts arising. This is best demonstrated in the hit film “The Insider” where 60 Minutes compromises a story out of concern for business dealings between their parent company and the cigarette industry.

    1. I believe that the FCC should relax their media ownership rules where news papers are concerned. But definitely do not abandon all rules especially the rule for large television networks to merger. I appreciate having the different media options in order to get different opinions. Some argue that consolidation is not an issue because we have the internet. I don’t agree with this because at least for me , when I use the internet to get news, I use the same networks I would use if I were watching the television. While you can find news all over the internet, for me it becomes an issue of how reliable and accurate the information is from these blog sites and other news outlets. Consolidation I think will take away diversity and the internet is the best solution.

26. Communications technology has changed at such a fast pace since 2004 than one should not be surprised if the FCC announces major changes to its many and complex regulations. However, none should be made unless the federal agency does not consider the impact of content producers, providers and distributors.

    Early this year, the FCC ruled favorably on net neutrality rules and declaring broadband internet service a utility. This is something to consider when the new ownership regulations are finally announced in 2016. After all, cable subscriptions are in decline, newspaper and magazines are disappearing, and most tv channels offer mostly entertainment. The trend has been such that nowadays, most people access relevant information – relevant for democracy I mean – over the internet.

    So, the FCC needs to be careful and include language that regulates not only tv, radio stations and newspapers, but focus on new media as well. Maybe, because the FCC controls the airwaves used by those stations, it needs to relax the current regulations. However, I believe the media ownership rules already benefit large media entities and if anything, the FCC should increase regulations.

    These days, I am more concern guarantee that Americans have access to the internet freely and at an affordable price. New regulation should probably be coordinated jointly by the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission to prevent “to-big-to-fail” information producers, providers and distributors. In other words, the new rules should prevent a company from owning a media outlet and the channels by which the broadcast reaches homes. For instance, Verizon should not be allowed to by netflix and a radio station and a newspaper and a local television station.

    The problem of large entities that behave more or less like monopolies is one of multi-platform reach, and I believe the FCC should be coordinating with other federal agencies to prevent large media companies to continue their trend of buying out smaller organizations.

27. I am not in favor of the notion that the FCC should relax media ownership rules as I don’t think it would be in the best interest of the public – a belief echoed by Rep. Anna Eshoo, who stated that “further deregulation would benefit big media but wouldn’t better serve the public.” Despite the fact that people can access many sources of news and information via the internet, this does not take away from the responsibility of traditional media sources to ensure a variety of media outlets and perspectives to the public. There is already far too much consolidation of media ownership, with 90% of media outlets being owned by just six media entities, and a single entity having the capability of reaching up to 39% of all U.S. TV households. To consolidate this further would critically limit the perspectives being broadcasted to the public via these media sources and further diminish their credibility. While the media is under no obligation to be fair, balanced or objective in their reporting per freedom of the press, and while they are able to selectively report truths, the further consolidation of media outlets would result in a far more limited and regulated number of selective truths, biases and perspectives being reported and broadcasted to the public – which can be dangerous, particularly when a media entity holds strong political perspectives on key issues and can shape public opinion through various media sources.

    The argument put forward by deregulation advocates who are stating that the media outlets must be further consolidated to compete with the internet are not arguing from the standpoint of public interest; rather, they are advocating for corporate interests. This is in clear conflict with the FCC’s responsibilities, as the FCC is required by Congress to ensure that their rules are in the public interest, not in big media.

    1. Traditional media outlets – radio and TV stations – do have an obligation to serve the public because they are using the public airwaves, which belong to all.
       As they move to new delivery methods, the FCC has been less eager to force them to do that and this is why today the nightly news are less relevant than the Daily Show or SNL’s Weekend Update. In this sense, I don’t think relaxing ownership rules more would change the landscape very much. However, if the do relax this rules, the FCC should be empowering new media with new rules that apply to other technologies and delivery methods. For instance, they may allow radio stations to consolidate more – in today’s world, commercial stations are giving no relevant information – but they should prevent those large entities from dominating other types of content.

       In the world of the Internet, the FCC and the Federal Government in general should be more concerned by the power concentrated in a few technology companies such as Google, Facebook, Apple, and even Amazon.

Comments are closed.